No advice animals or other low-effort image or text posts. Mods may remove these at their discretion.

No posts about bannings by other moderators (too common, not relevant to topic of "rights")

No linking to SRS or affiliated subs, or Gawker Media websites.

Spam/Off-Topic posts will be removed. Use self-posts for related topics, justifying their relation.

Facebook posts must be done w/ screenshot & blanked names.

Absolutely no doxxing will be tolerated.

Advocating for violence/illegal acts may be removed.

Links to other subreddits must use NP format ("np" in place of "www").

Young accounts are given no tolerance.

/r/MensRights strongly supports principles of free speech. People posting here are sharing their opinions. Opinions will not be removed, but actions may (see above rules). Please do not hesitate to send us a modmail if a user is violating the rules.

When Elam accused Vliet Tiptree, a pseudonymous contributor to RadFem Hub, of “calling for extermination of half the human race; the male half, that is,” he offered a cash reward for her real identity. The names and locations of several candidates were publically [sic] aired.

so it's not the movement that calls for extermination for men that's hate-filled. it's the second group; the one that that wants to know who the first group really is, that are the hate mongers.

Few possessors of Y chromosomes could read her words without feeling queasy. But to characterize [toptree's] essay as a well-developed plan, as Elam and his colleagues do, is not only ridiculous, it is willfully obtuse.

. . .

While men’s rights activists fantasize about existential threats to the male sex, real gendercide is being committed against girls in China, India, East Asia, the Caucasus and other parts of the world.

The discussions on this blog are reserved for women. Female-born, women-identified women are welcome to take part. This means that no male-born or male-identified person is given a platform to speak in this space. An amazing thing happens when women-identified women have the chance to speak, away from the carnivorous and necrophiliac behaviors of men.

But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.

No, you didn't. Here's what you had to say about us:

A “subreddit” of the user-generated news site Reddit, this forum describes itself as a “place for people who feel that men are currently being disadvantaged by society.” While it presents itself as a home for men seeking equality, it is notable for the anger it shows toward any program designed to help women. It also trafficks in various conspiracy theories. “Kloo2yoo,” identified as a site moderator, writes that there is “undeniable proof” of an international feminist conspiracy involving the United Nations, the Obama Administration and others, aimed at demonizing men.

...where are the "specific examples of misogyny" and the "threat of violence"?

The Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik

...had absolutely nothing to do with the MRM except that some of us are antifeminist and he was antifeminist.

When criticizing radfems, you interview them and get their side of the story.

When criticizing MRAs, you just browse Manboobz and ignore our side of the story.

While men’s rights activists fantasize about existential threats to the male sex, real gendercide is being committed against girls in China, India, East Asia, the Caucasus and other parts of the world.

Third-world oppression doesn't justify first-world feminism.

and when MRAs lurk in members-only chat rooms and cherry pick their angriest, most shockingly over-the-top posts to reprint on their own sites [...] they commit the same injustice they accuse the SPLC of doing to themselves.

Oh, so because random MRAs do something, it's totally okay for the SPLC to do the same. What's even worse is you JUST GOT FINISHED SAYING "the existence of hatred on one side of a color, political or gender line hardly justifies its presence on the other".

I dare say that if social justice and equal protection under the law were all that the MRM were about, then the SPLC would have had no reason to write about it.

Solanas was the undeniably disturbed woman who shot Andy Warhol in 1968.

Thomas James Ball, for example, who was hailed as a martyr on so many men’s rights forums, called for arson attacks on courthouses and police stations.

The Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik wrote extensively about the evils of feminism.

Ahh yes, this isn't a new tactic by any means. When a woman commits or calls for criminal acts it is not really her fault because she is "disturbed," that is suffering from a psychological condition and therefore not fully responsible for her actions (gee that's not misogynistic at all, always attempting to remove women's agency). Men like Ball (who immolated himself, not exactly the actions of a psychologically healthy person) and Breivik (who has been ruled legally insane by at least one report) are afforded no such introduction as troubled, in the case of Ball, or disturbed, in the case of Breivik.

Since they wont accept my posts and indulge in bare faced censorship I'll post them here:

Censored Post #1

ZimbaZumba said,
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36 pm

Mr. Goldwag, it is despicable that you used the good name of the SPLC to push your own politcal agenda and demonomise groups that are at odds with it. You have become the very thing SPLC was formed to fight against.

Your two “Intelligence Reports” were unabashed bigotry and have tarnished the SPLC reputation for objectiveness. As such you have compromised the SPLC’s ablitly to fight real hate groups. Repuations take decades to create, and seconds to destroy. Shame on you.

Your attempt here to deconstruct, re-interpret and sanitise your previous articles is merely compounding the damage you have done.

Censored Post #2

ZimbaZumba said,
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

on May 16th, 2012 at 1:00 pm

@Pecunium. The first rule of propagnada is “Demonise the Enemy”, a rule you seem to know well judging by your attempt to attach the ideas of two very troubled men onto the Men’s Right Movement.

The fact I have to read such thinly veiled hate mongering on the site of an organisation devoted to Human Rights is sickening.

The sad thing is, Paul eLame gives them all the ammunition they could possibly ask for. What an embarrassment he is.

The rest of this comment is just great.

Murphy said,
SPLC – with respect, I think your ‘cherrypicking’ tone of espoused reasonableness risks misleading readers into thinking you’ve some right to the moral high ground here.

Frankly it’s distasteful, deeply disingenuous and wrong to throw the examples of Anders Brievik and Thomas Ball at the mens rights and fathers rights movement.

It’s true that Brievik did write extensively criticising feminism. However while his trial is continuing, and all the evidence isn’t available yet, what is already obvious is that the overwhelming majority of his writing is anti-immigrant, pro-fascist, ultra-right-wing, anti-welfare state and apocalyptic in tone. He also condemns Christians, Muslims, vegetarians, people who wear sandals and socialists. He quotes Richard Dawkins approvingly.

Is the SPCL going to accuse prominent agnostics like Dawkins of inspiring Brievik’s actions? What about BBC ‘Top Gear’ presenter Jeremy Clarkson, or NYU historian Niall Ferguson, who Brievik also quotes?

Thomas Ball may well have ‘called for arson attacks on courthouses or police stations’. But you fail to point out that Ball was a deeply distressed, depressed and seriously sick man who’d been terribly ill-treated before commiting suicide in an act of self-immolation. Where’s your compassion or humanity for the despair he must have felt? You also fail to point out that no MRA has ever been convicted of an act of violence or carried out an attack of any kind.

The SPLC is guilty of the very thing it accuses mens rights of: favouring and minimising one side’s extreme speech, while highlighting and condeming the other.

“…to characterize her essay as a well-developed plan… is not only ridiculous, it is willfully obtuse.”

I don’t think anyone thinks it’s a ‘well-developed plan’, I think most of us think it’s a key text for feminists though.

You can’t compare it to Swift’s ‘a reasonable proposal’ because Solanas went straight out afterwards and tried to stab two men to death. To the best of my knowledge, Jonathan Swift was never caught trying to cook a baby.

Quoting ‘gendercide’ in the developing world is willfully misleading. You know perfectly well that mens rights activists are pretty much exclusive to the west – as are feminists. Trust me, there isn’t much call for ’slutwalks’ in Somalia.

As for ‘inspiring more self-criticism’ – well frankly the SPLC can take a running jump on that one. Some of us have had our children stolen from us, been reduced to poverty, been imprisoned and beaten.

You think our priority now is criticising OURSELVES? Are you completely befuddled?

Let’s be clear about this: the SPLC is in the same position as those who criticised Dr King back in the early 1960’s for ‘going too far’.

Let me help you out by summarising your piece in 40 words or less:

“Yes the mens rights movement has some good points to make, but they need to tone it done some, be a bit more reasonable, don’t play up so. Just stop being so damn uppity and crude.”

"You can’t compare it to Swift’s ‘a reasonable proposal’ because Solanas went straight out afterwards and tried to stab two men to death. To the best of my knowledge, Jonathan Swift was never caught trying to cook a baby."

Heh! Well done. Except she shot them and would have shot other people, if her gun hadn't jammed.

But that was just wacky performance art, I suppose.

That was a bad career decision for Ms. Valerie, really. If she hadn't shot at people, she'd still be remembered as a feminist in good standing to this very day.

'Swifts Modest Proposal' was showing the absurdity of following Utilitarian arguments through to their ultimate conclusion. Solanas's bile was an actual proposal and nothing to do with satire and the demonstration of absurdity..

Yes that's my opinion. Paul and AVfM created this current platform through controversy and we would not have it were it not for that. Farrell plays a different role. Its also my opinion that its best to use that platform and take full advantage of it, point out their double standards, make good arguments, post links and so on, rather than let it be a cause cause division among ourselves.

Yawn. Paul eLame's site didn't exist when Glenn Sacks started affecting actual legislation, which eLame hasn't and won't ever do. He has nothing to do with steering the readership of this reddit that's thankfully larger and independent from his trivial influence (influence on a fringe of easily discredited people- discredited by association with him). His role is to be a clown for the angry kind of feminists to point at, to achieve their own validation. And that is sad.

I don't have to believe those terms are particularly useful, in order to believe everything else I've said about this. I suggest that you take it up with Paul in private, instead of letting others create division.

I have no reason to make up anything about your buddy (his own words are enough) and I have never posted on your shitty website. I avoid it like I do your other shitty subreddit, whatever it's called. Try to attack me by making up things that are less transparently fake. You're as bad at lying or debating as you are at promoting causes.

Remember that time you threatened to commit suicide because you're a lifelong virgin? Is this why you resort to cheap homophobia?

Which one's a respected published author called to speak on national TV, and who's a shitty tabloid-esque/shock jock blogger who will never get more than footnotes about how men's rights is for misogynists?

Farrell's work helped birth the father's rights movement that's winning legislative victories. I can't tell if you're reading too much shitty blogging to notice, or if you're playing dumb about this on purpose.

Paul kicked Phlake off AVfM long ago for posting violent, frankly nutty shit, and linking to snuff pictures if memory serves. He/she has devoted his/her entire time in the MRM trying to discredit Paul and AVfM, rather than actual activism.

Not only that, but Phlake just can't seem to get enough people to agree with his/her assessment...

Bruised ego, coupled with fragile personality = vendetta born of jealousy. This is the type of nutbar to go Postal when frustrated enough.

LOL, now Paul's buddy is in here straight up making up lies on behalf of their treehouse. No matter how offended someone is about my criticism of him, none of it is invented in any way. (No need to, his own words are ample, and their greatest significance is to validate radical feminists.)

Take this as supporting evidence for why rejecting that guy is a positive thing to do.

“Anybody can become angry--that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way--that is not within everybody's power and is not so easy.” - aristotle

What he does is validate the angry kind of feminists, not weaken them.

he validates angry feminists by angrily pointing out and highlighting issues the rest of society ignores?

look, i'd prefer he be more tactful at times, but it's not a major issue that he isn't. his severity serves a purpose. the hope is as time goes on and our causes are more addressed, his need to be severe diminishes. in the mean time his site serves as a strong sounding board for countless MRA's and he's shown obvious talent for encouraging real collaboration among the MRM.

if anything, his site just helps to expose those who really have no interest in male issues.

If the article inspires more self-criticism in this vein, then perhaps it did the Men’s Rights Movement a service.

Anyone else find this eerily similar to Catherine Comins's opinion on men unjustly accused of rape?

They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions.

Cathy Brennan owns the domain RadFem Hub. “I don’t hate men,” she told me. “I have a father, I have a brother, I have a son. The war that Paul Elam is waging is in his head. I worry about women and children and the increasing violence in our society.”

i'm sorry, but doesn't all research suggest violence, all forms of violence, are decreasing in America?

The SPLC is not worth the effort. They are clearly on the other side despite their dishonest claim that they are neutral. They have proven that they are not reasonable people.

One thing in life that I have learned is that you cannot reason with unreasonable people. You simply cannot reason a person out of a position that they were not reasoned into. The MRM needs to concentrate its efforts on people and organizations that can be reasoned with.

Ask yourself: Has anything really changed in the MRM since the SPLC attacked the MRM? NO. They still lobby for their rights and MRM groups such as SAVE and fathers and families continue on and they will keep going on reasoning with reasonable people despite the B.S. from the SPLC. The SPLC simply doesn't matter in the long run.

The longer answer is: yes, because feminism has controlled the perspective under which we look for "power". For example, focusing discussions on the wage gap instead of on spending power, on female enrollment in STEM fields and not on education overall, on the gender of who is elected and not who those representatives pass laws for, on the sex that loses their loved ones in war and not the ones who all fucking died.

And the supposedly equality-oriented, third-wave feminists are no better for choosing to ally themselves with these ideals even if only in name.

Even rational anti-feminist blogs and organizations like the False Rape Society and SAVE [Stop Abusive and Violent Environments] are being tarnished with the same brush because the MRM ‘leadership’ has failed to deal with the kooks.”

hey folks i missed the last shareholders meeting, but i thought we were going to be voting in a new MRM chairman who was supposed to deal with these kooks. no? can't we at least get the board of directors for the international MRM to do an investigation?

“Cherry-picking the 70% female perpetrators figure from the abstract mis-represents what the paper as a whole actually says, and exactly what the paper is talking about.”

No it doesn’t.

The paper says that women are more likely to attack men, that women are more likely to be injured and that reciprocal domestic violence, which women initiate more often is the strongest predictor of an injury. (similar patterns were found in 32 different nations http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf).

Which debunks the false accusation that the mens movement are spreading a myth that women are at least as likely to commit DV as men. Its not a myth, its backed up by most of the peer reviewed data.

Im not cherry picking at all. Please don’t make any more false claims about me.

You also claimed that the mens movement made false claims about domestic violence rates.

Here is CDC data again, this time showing patterns and frequency of DV, and that women are significantly more likely to initiate and commit DV than are men.

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

I left a comment with them, I see that they are falsely labeling us as "the radical right".

Sig said,

ON MAY 16TH, 2012 AT 7:02 AM
The mens movement is less misogynist on average, than feminism and the mainstream is misandrist on average.

Its just that they are held to very different standards of accountability. You can see the dissonance and sexism, in the different treatment of the two groups in this article. These articles about the mens movement, rely on misrepresentation, intellectual dishonesty and sexist double standards.

@Reynardine

Its called the tender years doctrine. It was successfully lobbied for by a feminist called Caroline Norton and to this day large feminist organisations are lobbying for it is some form or another and obstructing a presumption of access to the father.

“The myth we questioned as to female inititiated violence was that “women attack men just as much as men attack women, if not more.”

Where are you getting your information from because its certainly not DV stats? The CDC 2010 you are citing like all large DV studies that are not known to have been biased since the 1980’s have shown that women are at least as likely to attack men in DV. Its confirmed in literally 100s of studies.

ON MAY 15TH, 2012 AT 7:01 PM
At one time, there was a “tender years presumption”, which dictated that, unless a mother were affirmatively proven unfit, she was the preferred guardian for children “of tender years” (generally below puberty). It did result in miscarriages of justice, but its total abolition has resulted in worse.

There is a presumption in courts of law that both parents will seek the well-being of the child, and that they need only be educated as to what that is. Not so in abusive relationships. An abusive spouse will use a child as a hostage and as a proxy for the departed partner, and where that abuser is male, he frequently has all the financial power in his hands. In such a case, even if the mother gets custody and any kind of financial assistance in the first instance, he will come back and back until he wrests both away from her. He’ll hound her at work until she gets fired; he’ll make trouble with her landlord until she gets evicted; he’ll do everything he can to destabilize her until he can prove her an unfit parent. This will be easy, because if she tries to prove this course of conduct, many courts not only won’t listen, they’ll dismiss her as a hysterical female who is poisoning the child. Once he has primary custody in a “joint custody agreement”, he’ll take the child out of state, asserting that his profession requires it, and then she’ll not only never see the child again, he’ll come after her for child support. The courts have been so primed by the “manosphere” that most of the time, they go along with the assumption that she is hysterical, vengeful, and mendacious; he is rational, objective, and manly. Yes, even female judges buy into this.

By no means do I wish to buy into the myth that all mothers are angels and all fathers are vindictive tyrants. Yet that myth caused less harm than its reverse, because men still have a financial advantage over women, and where the husband is abusive, he has often destroyed whatever resources and earning capacity the woman had. It’s a rare woman that ever had that power, and tornado sirens from the manosphere notwithstanding, any court that truly has the best interests of the child at heart must bear that in mind.

i was convinced this comment was one of the users here employing a "switched genders" tactic. when i got to the end of the comment and realized they meant what they were saying i just started laughing. and wondering where that person gets their drugs from.

1) VAWA, not to mention other blatantly sexist legislative initiatives such as affirmative action, constitutes a declaration of war against a nation's men. You don't have to agree with Thomas Ball to realize that a call to arms is not entirely unreasonable. The US Constitution has always factored in the right to rebellion against tyrants. This war against men had been declared long before Ball self-imolated and made his call to arms;

2) While aspects of register-her make me uncomfortable (it is true that some of those listed have not been found guilty of any crime), let us remind ourselves that men are named and shamed as rapists before they have even been found guilty of any crime, while their accusers are free to remain anonymous. Those public figures who publicly espouse silly sexism against men really should factor in what men are up against before they open their mouths. What do we think would happen to public figures these days if they spoke of women the same way?

3) So what if Anders Breivik wrote about the evils of feminism? Many nazis in Germany were also Christians. And Buddhists would have been counted among the ranks of the Khmer Rouge;

Is the MRM really a hate movement any more than feminism is? Goldwag's SPLC is The Establishment. They are the new tyrants in regards to which the increasingly trashed US Constitution had more than a few words to say.

Do you really think that 100 years from now fathers will still have no rights in family court? Male homeless will be denied shelter? Boys will be drugged in school for the "crime" of being born male?

The MRM will prevail. And we will never forget the SPLC. You chose the wrong side of history. You chose the side of oppression, sexism, and discrimination. You chose the side without mercy, without compassion, without humanity. You impeached your character, your identity, and your mission. You have become nothing more than greedy lawyers who bilk gullible fools out of money.